Skip to comments.DC v. Heller - Montana prepares to secede
Posted on 02/19/2008 7:35:11 PM PST by djf
Secy of State Brad Johnson of Montana delivered a letter to the Washington Times about possible outcomes of the Heller decision.
Second Amendment an individual right
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday).
The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory.
A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms.
As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.
Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract.
BRAD JOHNSON Montana secretary of state Helena, Mont. Montana, the Second Amendment and D.C. v. Heller
That era began in 1865. Was Montana not paying attention?
Interesting! Very interesting!!
Well, Montana’s a really nice place to live...
But is it big enough?
This is different. It would allow, according to Texas v Lee, the consent of the States for a legal secession. We just considered it not 2 years ago for a 10 acre town stranded in Canada.
But this would be different at a fundamental level. The statehood contracts would at first, simply revert Montana to a Territory, eliminating all Federal tax revenues from the state.
Quite. Different. And quite legal, just, and persuasive.
It’s crossed my mind - more than once!
If Obama is elected, we all should secede.
I'm more of an Idaho guy myself...
Now it begins... I expect Idaho to follow Montana’s lead. Let us see who has a bigger set of brass nuts: the SCOTUS or Montana. I’ll put my money on Montana.
I'm moving to Montana soon. nevermind the dental floss...
I am in Colorado and have been looking at moving if the SC defiles the Bill of Rights.
Count on my family moving to Montana in that case!
The sky certainly is.
Whats a small “double-wide” on 100 acres going for these days in south central Montana?
Yeah, its grand, but quite expensive.
As a way of making somone wake the hell up and pay serious attention, this is a masterpiece.
I’m a southern boy by birth, but by God I would put up with the snow for this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.